How The Tablet Made An Ass Of The PC

If you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself. ~ Einstein

Many tech watchers STILL don’t understand what a “disruptive innovation” is. I’m no Einstein, but I’m going to try to explain it in terms that even a six year old could understand (and with pretty pictures too!).

A disruptive innovation is:

an innovation that helps create a new market and value network, and eventually goes on to disrupt an existing market and value network (over a few years or decades), displacing an earlier technology.

If that still doesn’t resonate with you, that’s okay, because we’ve just begun and…

Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge. ~ Khalil Gibran

(Author’s Note: For the sake of simplicity, I’ll be using the term “PC” to describe both Notebook and Desktop computers, i.e, any computer with an attached keyboard.)

The Analogy

If the King’s English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me! ~ Ma Ferguson, former governor of Texas

The new often disrupts the old, which is somewhat akin to saying that the new often makes an ass out of the old, which brings us to my analogy:

The PC is like an Elephant and the Tablet is like an Ass (in the biblical sense).

Suspend belief for a moment and imagine that the PC is an Elephant and that the Tablet is an Ass. (That wasn’t so hard, now was it?) Imagine further that you lived in a land where the only pack animals were Elephants.

If you only have one tool, then that is the tool that you will use for most every task. If you only have one pack animal, i.e., the Elephant, then that is the pack animal that you will use for most every task. (Similarly, if you only have one type of computer, i.e., the PC, then that is the computer that you will use for most every computing task.)

ENTER THE ASS (Tablets)

Now imagine that the Ass (Tablet) is introduced into your Elephant-only (PC-only) ecosystem. If you were a purveyor of Elephants (PCs), would you feel threatened? Would you even care?

Of course not.

An Ass can carry goods. So can an Elephant.

An Ass can give people rides. So can an Elephant.

An Ass can pull a cart. So can an Elephant.

ANYTHING AN ASS (TABLET) CAN DO, AN ELEPHANT (PC) CAN DO BETTER.

There is nothing that an Ass (Tablet) can do that an Elephant (PC) cannot do and do better. Not only that, but an Elephant (PC) can do many things that an Ass simply cannot do at all.

— An Elephant (PC) will figuratively — and literally — go to war for you.

In other words, the owners and purveyors of Elephants (PCs) would never have any fear of the Ass (Tablet). They would, instead, mock it. They would treat it with disdain and consider it beneath contempt.

So why on earth would anyone ever consider using an Ass (Tablet) instead of an Elephant (PC)?

Reader Alert: This is the part where we try to understand why disruption occurs.

In other words, an Ass (Tablet) does most everything you use an Elephant (PC) for and does it cheaper and easier too.

The Four Stages Of Disruption

STAGE 1: OVER SERVING

The speed of a runaway horse counts for nothing. ~ Jean Cocteau

The problem starts when the Elephant (PC) begins to over serve its customer’s needs. The consumer only needs and uses a smidgen of the Elephant’s (PC’s) many and mighty powers. A feature means NOTHING to the end user if it isn’t useful. In fact, it’s a burden, both in added price and complexity.

STAGE 2: INTRODUCTION OF A DISRUPTIVE PRODUCT

At first glance, the Ass (Tablet) SEEMS to be far inferior to the Elephant (PC) but, in reality, the Ass has several disruptive advantages — including lower price and lower complexity — over the Elephant (PC).

The Elephant (PC) can do everything that an Ass (Tablet) can do but an Ass (Tablet) can do everything that the consumer wants and needs to do and it can do it easier and cheaper too.

STAGE 3: OVERCOMING THE “DEAL BREAKER” WITH THE 4% SOLUTION

“But, but, but,” you say, “there are some tasks that the Ass (Tablet) simply CAN NOT do and that ONLY an Elephant (PC) can do. That’s a deal breaker!

True enough.

However, it turns out that if 96% of consumers only need the power of the Elephant (PC) 4% of the time, then they will find a work-around that allows them to get by with the cheaper and easier to use Ass (Tablet). That’s the 4% solution1 .

For example, if you only need to use an Elephant once in a great while, you can simply borrow one from a neighbor, or rent one, or get by with the aging one that you already own.

I owe my success to having listened respectfully to the very best advice, and then going away and doing the exact opposite. ~ G. K. Chesterton

This is highly counter-intuitive, yet crucial to the understanding of disruption. The Ass (Tablet) doesn’t need to be all things to all people. It only needs to be most things to most people.

STAGE 4: THE TRICKLE TURNS INTO A FLOOD

Over served customers — gradually at first, then more and more rapidly — gravitate to the seemingly inferior solution that:

1) Best meets their needs;
2) Is cheaper; and
3) Is easier.

The customers leak away from the incumbent — whether it be an Elephant or a PC — until the incumbent is left high and dry, serving only the 4%; the “power users”; who truly do need the added power — and the added cost and complexity — that the incumbent’s product provides.

Conclusion

The obvious is that which is never seen until someone expresses it simply. ~ Khalil Gibran

The reason people don’t see disruption coming is because they compare one product to another when they should, instead, be comparing the needs of the consumer to the product that best serves those needs.

If you compare an Elephant (PC) to an Ass (Tablet), there is no question that the Elephant (PC) is superior. But that’s missing the point entirely. Because if you compare the task at hand – say, riding into town, or sending an email – to the available tools, then the lowly Ass (Tablet) kicks the Elephant’s (PC’s) keister ever time.

Related Posts

John Kirk

John R. Kirk is a recovering attorney. He has also worked as a financial advisor and a business coach. His love affair with computing started with his purchase of the original Mac in 1985. His primary interest is the field of personal computing (which includes phones, tablets, notebooks and desktops) and his primary focus is on long-term business strategies: What makes a company unique; How do those unique qualities aid or inhibit the success of the company; and why don’t (or can’t) other companies adopt the successful attributes of their competitors?

Loved it! Well balanced, objective, funny and true. But then, there’s the horse….
Feel free to edit, delete, moderate, whatever. I can’t resist!
I take it you’re an Ass man?

Mark

This was so informative and entertaining. Great use of analogy to make a subtle point.

One take away for me is if we use an over featured tool it introduces additional uncertainty into our lives. Simpler, cheaper, and easier tends to be more reliable. Witness the number of times I have had to experience delays in my work when my elephant does something inexplicable (and my lack of knowledge on how to fix it) versus the reduced number of times and ease of fixing when I use my Ass.

Mark

jfutral

I’m still working on using my sawzall as a PC… er, elephant AND ass.

Joe (must… resist… making… puns…!)

James King

This article conflates form factor with user experience. A tablet is far from an ideal form factor for many tasks, particularly text intensive or pixel-precise ones. If Mr. Kirk thinks that 96% of people will never have a need to do text intensive or pixel precise work in their lifetimes, I have a bridge in Brooklyn in which I think he’d be interested.

Bottom line, people have to work or, more accurately, people have to DO work. Is it feasible that the form factors associated to the traditional PC are going to disappear from businesses? Highly unlikely. So let’s start from the position that people are going to be using PC form factors in businesses for the foreseeable future. Now, those same people who have to use those form factors for work WOULDN’T have a need for them in their personal lives? No one works from home or otherwise would need a PC form factor in a fit of inspiration? That’s also highly unlikely.

I don’t see how tablets magically negate the circumstances of input intensive or pixel precise work. I also don’t understand how they magically obviate the need for such work. Anyone who has to use a PC form factor for his/her work or in his/her place of business also has a high potential to need such a device personally. The market for PC form factors is shrinking but it isn’t disappearing.

That being stated, the USER EXPERIENCE on traditional PC form factors can definitely benefit from the software paradigms that have been introduced on tablets. Ben Thompson recently wrote a pretty good article on how ChromeOS, using many of the UI/UX advances implemented in tablets, has greatly simplified the use of the laptop/notebook/”netbook” form factor. He makes some great points about how he has found that he has need of many different hardware form factors and my thinking goes along the same lines. Different tools for different tasks. People will continue to use a variety for form factors provided they have the economic means. Those who can afford consoles, TVs, PCs, tablets, etc. will purchase the combination of them which best suits their needs. The problem with PCs isn’t one of hardware but one of software.

Shameer Mulji

“The market for PC form factors is shrinking but it isn’t disappearing.”

To give credit to this article, it never said PC form factors were (or are) disappearing. It’s implyig it’ll be a niche market.

“Ben Thompson recently wrote a pretty good article on how ChromeOS, using many of the UI/UX advances implemented in tablets, has greatly simplified the use of the laptop/notebook/”netbook” form factor.”

I read that article and it’s very well-written. Like yourself, my thinking is along his lines – different tools for different tasks.

James King

“To give credit to this article, it never said PC form factors were (or are) disappearing. It’s implyig it’ll be a niche market.” Shameer Mulji

I guess if you can call a market of several hundred million units “niche”…

FalKirk

“I guess if you can call a market of several hundred million units “niche”” – James King

Several hundred million units IS niche when one is talking about 2 billion units of smart phones and tablets.
—
The number of smartphones in use on earth will probably pass the number of PCs in the first half of 2014. pic.twitter.com/2XPQH7xugS ~ Benedict Evans (@BenedictEvans)
—
Desktop, laptop and tablet sales since 1995. Pretty clear trend. pic.twitter.com/eFrQTXVKJF ~ Benedict Evans (@BenedictEvans)

James King

The mobile phone industry has always been larger than the PC industry. As Benedict Evans pointed out, smartphones are largely just displacing regular mobile phones.

I don’t debate that truly mobile computing is supplanting the traditional PC model as the PRIMARY means of computing. I simply view them as extensions of one another.

If we are going to be really accurate, a “niche” market is “a focused, targetable portion (subset) of a market sector.” (via Wikipedia) Every form factor could then be considered a “niche” of the greater market of computing devices. It wasn’t my intention to get wrapped up in semantics but I only have myself to blame for stepping into that particular pile.

Joe_Winfield_IL

Unit volume has always been higher, but REVENUES for mobile phones have not always been larger than PCs.

The Use of “niche” is relative in this case. PCs will be a shadow of their former value, even if still large. If mobile computing (smartphones, tablets, chromebooks) continues to grow according to forecast and PCs continue to shrink, the relative value of the two markets will eventually be separated by an order of magnitude.

James King

Based on the current commodification of smartphones and tablets, I think your point is arguable. When it comes to computing hardware, a dominant OS with little product differentiation leads to cut-throat competition on price, as the PC market shows. The same dynamic will likely play out with Android. I expect revenues to flatten significantly over time and top out above PCs, but not outlandishly so.

Joe_Winfield_IL

Fair point. But in so doing, it will have cut the value of PCs DRAMATICALLY.

Android generates plenty of revenue, just not much profit. Even revenue will drop as a matter of commodification. It’s already happening. A commodity OS means a race to the bottom when it comes to hardware margins.

http://www.laugh-eat.com/ kyron

why bother counting chromebooks? they are still elephants even if on a newer OS that we like better. its unit sales/volume is a rounding error of tablets (ipads)…nobody but the techno elite have ever heard of one let alone used.

http://www.laugh-eat.com/ kyron

the market is shrinking. as we discuss these trends we arent talking about today as a frozen snapshot of time eternal, but rather where the puck is going….(hint: it’s not going back to growing PC sales. ever.)

James King

The market is shrinking, not disappearing. It’s common sense that the market contract as new form factors more suitably address new use cases. For that matter, even tablet sales are flattening.

The PC isn’t going anywhere.

FalKirk

James, this article wasn’t about tablets and PCs. They were just examples. I could have, and perhaps should have, written this article about how convenience stores disrupted Supermarkets, how cars disrupted trains, how Microwaves disrupted Ovens, etc.

This article was about disruption – how a seemingly lessor product can displace and sometimes replace a seemingly superior product.

Go back and re-read the article focusing only on the Donkey and the Elephant. If one looks at things from the point of view of the product, there is no way the Elephant loses. But that’s not how things work in real life because it turns out that If one looks at things from the point of view of the public, there is no way the Donkey loses.

Disruption theory is all about understanding that very unintuitive outcome.

James King

Your metaphor was spot on and, without the PCs and tablets references, I wouldn’t have had any contention. But when true disruption happens, it is no longer possible for the incumbents’ business to exist in any meaningful way. Ben Thompson coined the term “obsoletive” to decribe it. In order for tablets to be truly disruptive to PCs, PCs would, more or less, have to disappear or be marginalized to the point of insignificance from a market share perspective. Considering that PCs still outsell tablets roughly 6 to 1 and laptop PCs outsell tablets roughly 3 to 1, it’s not possible to make a credible case that tablets are “disrupting” PCs. Even in the worst case scenario, with 100% of the consumer market and 50% of the business market evaporating, there would still likely be a need for well over a hundred million PCs, probably closer to 500 million. That’s still a sizable market no matter how you cut it.

So I totally agree with the metaphor, just not the correlation to PCs and tablets.

klahanas

Hence the horse…

Joe_Winfield_IL

Why does a product need to be obsoletive to be disruptive? If incumbent PC vendors go out of business, others merge, and all that remain work on smaller margins, I think it is safe to say they will feel quite disrupted. Obsolescence is an impossible threshold to demonstrate disruption.

The value chain is changing dramatically, and not just for PC OEMs. Software revenue is ramping rapidly on the mobile side at the expense of Windows application sales and development. Accessory sales are through the roof on mobiles, while things like printers are much less important than they once were. Services that are built into phones and tablets (especially location-based) are reducing the need for many PC functions.

James King

Based on the work of Clay Christensen, obsolescence is one of the determining factors that an incumbent has actually been “disrupted” vs. simply being the victim of natural market forces. Sure, more efficient, more nimble competitors will often “disrupt” incumbents in a colloquial sense, but Christensen identified true disruption as a sea change in an industry in which a seemingly inferior competitor more or less completely supplants incumbents with what is initially viewed as an inferior product.

Joe_Winfield_IL

I think we may have to agree to disagree on the definition. It’s a subjective term, and impossible to directly measure. I would simply argue that the offloading of the “job to be done” onto nimbler mobile computing devices is leading to fewer people needing fewer PCs and replacing them less often. Call it whatever you want, but the PC makers have had a really bad 5 years and are in for a lot more hurt.

James King

I just agree with Christensen’s distinction of “disruption” as a unique event because it clearly underscores the difference between a sea change in an industry and simple market forces.

That being stated, I do agree that the word “disruption” can be used in many colloquial ways to describe an incumbent being blindsided and outmanuevered by a canny smaller, more nimble opponent.

As for the future of the PC, I agree with your outlook but only because I don’t think Microsoft has the will to overhaul Windows in such a fashion as to make it truly user friendly like iOS or ChromeOS. Even if Microsoft were to do that, it’s obvious that smartphones and tablets have a much larger natural market based on price and convenience of use. But I think a much more user friendly PC OS could stem the bleeding and allow the natural market of the PC to rest higher on the value chain than it will under these circumstances.

http://www.laugh-eat.com/ kyron

even should someone invent such an OS, it should wouldnt make me want to lug around the PC it’s installed on everywhere. thats why tablet (ass) wins.

James King

Your preference. Nothing wrong with that.

http://www.laugh-eat.com/ kyron

bingo. there is so much more one can do on a tablet now that the PC is being left for the outlier use cases. i control my home’s heating and lighting systems with….my phone. that’s the post-PC magic, folks. “post-PC” doesnt mean “replacing PC”, it means “after PC”. these jobs are moving to the post-PC world.

http://garyhorsman.com Gary Horsman

Agreed. A technology need not be eliminated to be disrupted. It just needs to lose its dominant position.

It’s all too common for tech enthusiasts to see the world as a dichotomy of winners versus losers. But that’s rarely the case.

http://www.laugh-eat.com/ kyron

“PCs still outsell tablets roughly 6 to 1 and laptop PCs outsell tablets
roughly 3 to 1, it’s not possible to make a credible case that tablets
are “disrupting” PCs.”

really not possible? ok, then tell me this — what was the ratio of PC-to-tablet sales pre-ipad (ipad being the only notable tablet of record at the moment)? it was much, much higher than 6:1 or 3:1. in fact it was so high nobody gave a whip about tablets because they were a mere curiosity.

thats upward mobility, my friend.

James King

True disruption is the elimination of a product, class of product, or service by a less expensive “good enough” disruptor. There is no indication that tablets will eliminate PCs entirely. To the contrary, as PCs become more specialized devices, boutique builders will be able to offer them at healthier margins than large OEMs. The PC market is likely to get healthier with the contraction rather than fade away.

Greg ZX

I don’t think complete elimination is a prerequisite for “disruption”. The definition for “disruption” that I think applies here is this: “an event that results in a displacement or discontinuity”.

Even if your industry doesn’t completely die, if it were you who lost his job, had to move or go on welfare, I’d wager that you and all your colleagues would feel like your industry had been pretty “disrupted”. Disruption and market forces are not mutually exclusive, as you seem to think. I’m not sure why you make that distinction where none is necessary. More aptly, I think disruption can be a result of “simple market forces”.

James King

The events outlined by Clay Christensen showed the complete elimination of products or services for practical use by “disruptors.” Sure, you can use the term “disruption” in a colloquial sense but the tech industry uses the term in a very specific fashion. I made this point earlier in the thread.

“Disruption and market forces are not mutually exclusive, as you seem to think.” – Greg ZX

I don’t think I claimed that they were.

“I’m not sure why you make that distinction where none is necessary.” – Greg ZX

I didn’t make the distinction, Clayton Christensen did. I agree with his theory. In the conditions he outlined, “disruptors” completely eliminate incumbents from a practical standpoint. However, the word “disruption” existed long before Christensen used it to identify a specific event. He doesn’t own the word and it can easily be used in many contexts.

chano1

Lessor?
Where did you study law chum?

DarwinPhish

Tablets do not make the work best done by PC’s completely go away, but they (and other devices) can reduce the amount of PC-optimized work that needs to be done. Using John’s analogy, Elephants are still needed to clear forests, but the use of asses might lessen the need to clear forests.

Going back to PCs and tablets, I have seen many workplaces reduce the number of traditional PC’s they need because work has shifted to tablets and iPhones (not the same work, but the result is a net reduction in PC based work). For example, I worked on a project where PC’s were used to enter data that was manually collected. Once smartphones were used to collect data, there was no need to re-enter it on a PC. They continued to use PCs to analyze and report the data, but the total number of PC’s used dropped by about 80%.

James King

Whoa. Interesting stuff (no sarcasm intended).

http://www.dahayden.com/ David Alastair Hayden

I think Chromebooks are part of the disruption. Form factor aside, they have more in common with tablets than with PCs: almost instant on, security, simplicity, affordability, no maintenance required. Chromebooks have all those tablet qualities you’d expect but in a different form.

I’m doing 90% of my work on a Chromebook and finishing projects on a Mac Mini that will last me ages. Other than the family central computer, the Mac is used for Photoshop and Office and a few special software pieces I need at the end of projects.

Notice how Microsoft is moving against Chromebooks even in their early growth surge. Going from 1% to 2% of the market doesn’t normally stimulate that sort of response in a market, despite the growth rate and potential. But Microsoft knows that Chrome OS is potentially even more disruptive to them because it melds tablet (ass) advantages with a keyboard and familiar form factor. (Looks like an elephant but is actually an ass? Or it’s a really big ass? I’m lost in the metaphors now.)

http://www.laugh-eat.com/ kyron

chromebooks havent disrupted anybody — nobody uses them (youre an outlier), because theyre the same form factor as a PC notebook (elephant). the market of tomorrow will not be walking around w/ chromebooks in backpacks, or chromebooks on the sofa. the form factor doesnt fit the job to be done.

http://www.dahayden.com/ David Alastair Hayden

On the off chance it’s worth commenting and you’re not a Google/Chrome OS hater … Chromebooks are already disrupting the US education market. Last year PC sales were down 18.5% and Chromebook sales were up 19%. The other half percent Chrome took away from Mac sales mostly. iPad sales to the education market are still good but have stagnated. The Google App ecosystem is the driver along with Chrome OS.

Disruption isn’t all about form factor. GUI vs command line had nothing to do with form factor. I tried to explain that above. Form factor is about experience. The experience of a Chromebook is more like the experience of a tablet but in a laptop factor. I know there’s a market for this. I’ve seen the third party market for iPad keyboard attachments. Input is important for doing some kinds of work. The market of tomorrow will need keyboards in some cases.

And I was tagged an outlier before when I used my iPad to do about 75% of my work for a year, before that became more acceptable.

Chromebooks will eat away traditional PCs in a lot of the cases where tablets can’t. We’ll end up with a world of PCs for heavy use, Chromebooks for medium use, and tablets for light use.

Atlas

Late to the party, but still…

“If Mr. Kirk thinks that 96% of people will never have a need to do text intensive or pixel precise work in their lifetimes, I have a bridge in Brooklyn in which I think he’d be interested.”

Except that’s not what he said. He said those people will need to do that work very few times (4%).

James King

Except he is incorrect. He forgets that hundreds of millions of people will use PCs for their jobs. Think of Apple, Google, Facebook, for that matter any major company worldwide. At none of those locations is the tablet the primary means of computing. I can add in millions of small businesses as well.

Atlas

Those millions are still a minority. And most of those same people probably don’t need a PC at home for entertainment. People who work on computers are still a minority. I do but I know that.

James King

Total tablet install base is still far less than the PC.

Atlas

Because those are PCs sold before the iPad appeared. Now tablets sell a lot more than PCs. Even yesterday someone told me she didn’t use her computer anymore since she got an iPad. In five years very few people will still be buying laptops and even less desktops. The average people haven’t been buying desktops for years already.

James King

Roughly 300 million PCs sell every year. And tablet growth is slowing. Your prediction isn’t a guarantee. Right now, it isn’t even close.

even if the growth keeps decreasing (and there is no reason why it should), it would still grow while PC sales decline. That the shipments of tablets will surpass PC shipments soon is no secret.
Of course PCs will continue to sell, but in large majority for businesses mainly.

“However, it turns out that if 96% of consumers only need the power of the Elephant (PC) 4% of the time…” – John Kirk

This stat is unrealistic. PCs are likely necessary far more than 4% of the time simply by remaining the key form factor in business. And anyone who would need one for their work will also likely need one in their home, especially if they work at or from home often.

Atlas

I think that 4% is close to the real percentage of people who work at home.

poke

You can still type on a tablet and it’d be trivial to make a virtual touchpad, so the PC form factor has no advantage. The tablet is a superset of the PC form factor. The only case that can be made is that one is more efficient than the other, which is at best a user experience issue. Regardless, it’s not enough to support a market, especially when the problems can be trivially solved with peripherals or a redesigned UI.

http://www.laugh-eat.com/ kyron

” If Mr. Kirk thinks that 96% of people will never have a need to do text intensive or pixel precise work in their lifetimes, I have a bridge in Brooklyn in which I think he’d be interested.”

you misunderstood. it is not that 96% of the customers won’t ever have intensive uses *ever*. it’s that 100% of the customers won’t have intensive uses 96% *of the time*. for them, a small car is fine. but when that 4% of work rears its head, *then* they’ll find a way to meet that job to be done — grab a notebook, sit at the desk, etc.

DarwinPhish

“There is nothing that an Ass (Tablet) can do that an Elephant (PC) cannot do and do better.”

Not true. Asses can go to and fit into places elephants can not

Hosni

@Darwin-
The elephant is computing; the ass is mobile computing.

Slowmind

Hi John, I really enjoy reading your every article in this site.

One comment/question I have is, besides being cheaper and easier to use, is that tablet disrupts PC really because of Steve Jobs’s point, iPad(tablet) does certain tasks in a far more superior way than smartphone and PC, qualified as being a new category device? My point is, without touch, without app store, etc, tablet hardly takes off, and hard to say it can disrupt PC. Netbooks used to be cheaper, maybe easy to use(not so sure?), but it failed terribly, right?

klahanas

The netbook was just a dirt cheap, awful PC. But it was a PC.

Bertie

The essence of why Tablets are disrupting PCs is very similar to why the WIMP user interface disrupted the command line back in the 90’s

jfutral

“(and with pretty pictures too!)”

Yes!

Joe

Gary Brockie

Well this goes back to the basics of what technology is. Humans make tools in order to make a task easier or even possible to accomplish that otherwise is difficult or impossible. A basic claw hammer is useful for driving a nail into a piece of wood. This tool has for hundreds of years been the dominant technology for a carpenter to use for driving nails. Somewhat recently a pneumatic driven nail tool was introduced. Which tool would you use if you were paying guys by the hour to frame up houses?

There are still instances where using a hammer by hand still makes sense but by and large the pneumatic nailer is dominant.

http://garyhorsman.com Gary Horsman

Not for hanging up picture frames, which is what 90% of people who need a hammer do 90% of the time.

Mauryan

Tablets will eliminate the need for printed documents to a large extent. Instruction manuals, guidelines, procedures etc can be done with simple and user friendly graphics on a tablet and handed off to customers. Car manuals is an example. If they can write apps for each car with needed maintenance instructions, troubleshooting and quick garage based fixes that even a grandmother can follow, tablets are the way to go. Even the medical industry can develop apps where patients fill out many diagnostic questions that a doctor or his assistant asks ahead of time and provide information to the patient for immediate steps to be taken and reducing consultation costs and number of visits. A lot can be done with tablets where manipulation of data by the user is minimal and only input and output are sufficient in an interactive format. A PC finds its use when the user can not only input data, but also manipulate it and vary the output. So both systems have a divergent point of usage. PCs will become more specific and tablets will become generic. Both will be needed in the long run. Tablets will be around because of user friendliness, cost and battery life, along with easy portability and user friendliness. PCs will be around as well because everything cannot be built using tablets. We need both cars and big trucks. Each has its specific use. Big trucks are not parked in everyone’s garage. And cars do not haul big cargo. Consumers are now being able to find devices specific to their needs. There are certain things I never use on my smart phone, even though those features are there (browser for example). I never use the tablet for texting or shooting pictures or videos. I view them on the tablet and shoot them with the smart phone. And I use my Mac Pro desktop for Adobe photoshop, scanning documents, excel worksheets and Word documents. I know exactly how all three fit into my specific needs. By using the PC less, I am able to prolong its life. I leave it shut down when not using it and charge my tablet and smartphone every night once. I always go out with my smartphone and tablet. My PC stays home and has much limited use now. I browse the web using my tablet most of the time. I read Flip Board and the National Geographic on my tablet. Since workload is now shared between my devices, I am able to use them longer than I did before. And that has led to less demand for the PC. In the market, that is the case. With lesser demand, and production of PCs based on previous era’s projections, the PC industry faces a glut of laptops and desktops gathering dust. No one cares for processor speed so long as they can get their jobs done. Companies like Intel have realized this truth and are trying to adopt to it. Hope they will gain some inroads so that the industry can survive and people can keep their jobs. The things that scares me when disruptive technologies arise is about well established companies having to layoff in troves. Well qualified and experienced people cannot suddenly switch into new skills and markets. These are people earning in six figures. That is the only negative thing about disruptive technologies. Adaptation to abrupt changes is hard for those who have grown up in a technological world where high qualifications and experience really matter. I worry for those working at Intel, Motorola, Microsoft etc. They are the ones who will really feel the kick from the ass.

Kizedek

I’m just hoping tablets won’t eliminate the use of paragraphs.

FalKirk

Kizedek, that was rude, but bitingly witty and funny too.

It’s sure a lot easier to read things when there are paragraphs, but I know a lot of people whose writing is simply beautiful…but whose content is simply ugly.

If I had to choose one over the other, I’d take substance over form and I very much appreciate the substance Mauryan’s remarks.

Looking forward to hearing more from both of you in the future.

Kizedek

Sorry, it was rude. I apologize to you, Mauryan,

http://www.laugh-eat.com/ kyron

the form matters — because properly organized paragraphs represent organized thought…I am surely not the only one who skipped over Mauryan’s tower of words because I didn’t want to spend the time trying to decode it. In effect, I didn’t want the job of organizing his un-polished stream of consciousness in hopes of finding truth. Therefore I skipped it and his communication attempt failed.

Bill Smith

I often find great minds, with much to contribute, like Mauryan, who never bothered to learn (or at least, do not practice) the rules of communication. Some see my complaints about this as rudeness. In fact, I tend to have great respect for such folk, and am angered by being deprived of their thoughts.

Your quip, Kizedek, is exactly what I was thinking, but expressed far better.

stefnagel

“… the need for printed documents …” Great point. Printers are the weak link, what with their $5,000 per gallon ink. Tablets get rid of an antique device and its gouging purveyors.

JoeS54

So John Kirk is a lawyer who bought a Mac in 1985. And he can regurgitate Wikipedia. Apparently that’s all it takes to write about technology. And if blaring allusions count for anything, apparently this has something to do with Democrats and Republicans. Who knew?

The sad thing is that this site actually attempts to charge people for this stuff.

benbajarin

What’s sad is your critique. Particularly that you seem to have a problem with one author. I don’t see you raising much of stink of presenting any valid criticism or analysis of any others. Debate with me on one my columns if you feel up to it.

What is also sad is that you would critique a service like our insiders one with zero knowledge of what we offer inside. You make many flawed assumptions and your tone is tiring and unhelpful. We prefer people offer valid insight into this forum. If you can’t do that you are free to not visit our site or comment.

JoeS54

It’s mostly been covered below. Tablets and smartphones are not “disruptors” for PCs. They’re different form factors of PCs.

Even worse, the implication is that tablets and phones should be conflated into one category, and the explosive sales of smartphones (with a two-year contract and what amounts to planned obsolescence) should be attributed to tablets, which have sold much more slowly, then used as an argument for why tablets will replace “PCs”.

However, Mr. Kirk’s real obsession is clear, which is: Microsoft vs. Apple. And apparently in his mind Microsoft represents Republicans, evil corporations, etc. and Apple represents Democrats the pure, good and holy world of artists and educators.

In the real world, people use what works. And the central question is whether iOS and/or Android can actually do the things that people use PCs for. As it turns out, despite slow PC sales, Microsoft apparently has the highest public ranking of any tech brand (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9245262/Microsoft_trumps_Apple_in_branding_takes_top_spot) across all age groups, who list their products as “essential” to their lives. This is not rocket science. It fits with what we know about reality. People ENJOY their smartphones and tablets (those who have them), but they DEPEND on Windows, Office, etc.

I’m not a fan or booster of Microsoft. I’ve always used Windows out of pragmatism, not love, because the closed ecosystem of Apple was a detriment to choice in hardware and software on PCs. I liked the iPhone until iOS7, and owned several iPods before there was an iPhone. I am, however, a huge fan of the Surface Pro 2, which I bought about a month ago. That device is what it took to get me to buy a tablet. I didn’t need a an iPhone or Galaxy with a big screen. I already have a phone. It’s the first time Microsoft has actually impressed me with something. It’s the best tablet on the market, by far.

So what will it be? Big Smartphone tablets, or Small Laptop tablets? I think the popularity of “phablets” is a sign that most people do not want to buy (and maintain) two devices that are identical except for screen size. A phone large enough to surf the web and watch video on seems to be what many people want.

Simply put, PCs (usually running Windows) are ubiquitous. Smart phones are becoming ubiquitous. The space between the two is full of experimentation right now, and the iOS and Android tablets are early attempts to make something out of it. The Surface Pro 2 is a different direction. I chose the latter. And apparently so have a lot of other people since they were released.

benbajarin

I’ve followed your comments below. Believe it or not I get an email for every comment posted on this forum which I read. Despite my busy schedule both speaking, and writing, and providing in-depth market analysis for all industry stake holders, I make it a priority to make sure the dialogue on this forum is respectful and productive to the larger conversation we are engaging in at an industry level with our site. And if you read any of my columns you know some of my thoughts are the same as yours.

What I am still unclear of is how John’s tact with his columns, and their lack of appeal to your specific tastes, justifies a criticism of our business model for which you have no context.

http://www.dahayden.com/ David Alastair Hayden

“Microsoft vs. Apple. And apparently in his mind Microsoft represents Republicans, evil corporations, etc. and Apple represents Democrats the pure, good and holy world of artists and educators.”

Huh? I didn’t get that from the article at all. Are we not allowed to ever discuss those two animals anymore without it being interpreted as politics? I guess not in modern America. Everything has become so polarized. OMG, I hate Republicans/Democrats and MS/Apple/Google …

http://www.noisetech-software.com/Home.html Steven Noyes

The telephone was not a disruptor of the telegram from your thought process.

Or the PC did not disrupt the mainframe, the PC was just a different form factor computer.

FalKirk

JoeS54, your personal attack on me is not only sad, it’s completely inane.

“So John Kirk…can regurgitate Wikipedia.” ~ JoeS54

Which I didn’t do anywhere in the article.

“apparently this has something to do with Democrats and Republicans. Who knew?” – Joes54

Nobody knew, Joe, because it has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans which you would know if you had bothered to read the article instead of just looking for irrelevant ways to criticize it.

Here’s the thing, Joe. I make lots of mistakes and get lots of justified criticism. But you’ve apparently got a bug up you back for some reason and you seem to think that that justifies your posting complete drivel. I think Ben Bajarin is being far too kind to you. You’ve added nothing and there appears to be no chance that you’ll ever add anything of value to this forum. I’d just block you and be done with it.

I can stand the heat, Joe. But tolerating idiotic remarks that have no bearing on anything? Not so much.

jfutral

“Jane, you ignorant slut…”

If only such exchanges were as funny in real life as in an SNL skit. Or as (sadly) productive as in politics and radio talk shows.

If your goal is to somehow make techpinions.com toxic because you don’t like the content, I think the writing here stands strong on its own as do the authors, even when I disagree, and you pretty much lose.

If you have no such goal, maybe you could explain why you bother wasting your (and our) time here?

If you simply disagree with the article, would you be so kind as to avoid the ad hominems? I know the internet seems to not just allow but encourage, almost mandate, such behaviour (I know I’ve succumbed, it is a difficult gravity to overcome). But it really doesn’t help. Nor is it as entertaining as an SNL skit, even a bad one.

Joe

Bill Smith

Joe,

As a great fan of Kirk’s writing, I can say that I would cheerfully pay the subscription fee for Kirk’s articles alone. His work is a bit artistic, so I can understand that you’re not a fan of his style, but I sure am.

I found JoeS54’s comments needlessly ‘disruptive’ (In another sense than here.) leaving me wondering whether he should take his own measure and avoid reading John’s columns.

John is like a fine wine: rare, unique, and exquisite! (Oh, and free!) Meets my tastes to a tee. Thank you, John.

Bill Smith

@joes54:disqus I’m pretty critical of the articles here on TechPinions, but I think you’ve gone a bit far.

There are different writing styles here, including ones that I don’t agree with, but I have not seen incompetence or “fanboy” syndrome. You won’t enjoy every columnist who contributes. I have my personal favorites, and sometimes even they disappoint me, but I do get my money’s worth in terms of unique insights and, in the comments section, great discussion. I say that as a paying subscriber who has actually suggested that the subscription rate be doubled to more appropriately match the value of the content.

I subscribe to much more expensive services. Techpinions has a greater number of diverse contributors, less overall bias, and better community by far. I pay for these services because it’s my job to know what’s going on, and to provide wisdom to my clients; the insight I gather here literally translates to income for me.

Having taken nearly every columnist here to task at some point, I doubt any of them will cower at your criticism (or mine). Yet, for you to not see the great value of this forum is to do yourself an injustice. This is a remarkable treasure trove. If John Kirk’s rubies aren’t to your liking, perhaps you should examine Wildstrom’s amethysts, but please keep the ad hominem attacks to yourself.

http://danshockley.com/ DanShockley

Agree with your premise and conclusion. A little puzzled with the decision to break up the flow of reading the article with a bunch of semi-relevant quotes. This article could have made its point more effectively by structuring its argument in a manner that was less elephant and more ass.

John

suspend disbelief

FalKirk

You are absolutely correct. I’ll not make that mistake again.

teralgoe

I think
that the Steve Jobs analogy is more accurate, the pick-up truck instead of the
elephants.

What if we
live in a world where only exist pick-up trucks?

You can load
the bed with a ton of wood, you can use to drive your children to the soccer practice,
or go to the pharmacy to buy Advil, or haul a small ship.

For some
uses the pickup truck just work and work very well, for other uses is just an
overkill.

Same
happens with PC’s, the reality is that the original purpose of the pc’s was intended
not for the average consumer, but for scientific and financial companies if not
military. The adoption of the consumer market is due the lower prices that mass
production yield.

However the
exponential growth in computing power of the processors, long ago have
surpassed the average consumer needs, I call this,the omega point. The pc for
just web browsing and facebook is an overkill.

Then appear
the ass (tablet). Following the car theme I will use a Toyota Prius as analogy,
the Prius is the opposite of the truck, is nimble, efficient, lightweight,
frugal, etc. Sure it cannot haul too much weight, or being loaded with all your
possessions in a house moving, but for all your other’s needs, it just work.

For the
average consumer is the heaven, is easy to use, you don’t have to worry to handle,
is easy to park (have you tried to park a truck in a crowded parking lot) a
fuel tank last double than the truck. If you need to move something heavy, you
can borrow the truck of your cousin.

Suddenly
most truck users are buying Priuses, only hardcore owners keep their trucks and
dismiss Priuses, consumers that buy their first car omit completely trucks and
go for Priuses. That seems the end of truck market.

Well, as
happens in the real world car market trucks still are selling, people still use
trucks, maybe not the average consumer, but a lot of farmers and contactors
need trucks to do their work.

Same trend
in the computing devices market, people buy a lot of tablets, but also a lot of
pc’s, yes, people buy less pc’s, if is because they use more their tablets or
because the replacement cycle of the pc’s is longer really doesn’t matter, the
people that need to make a living still need to use a PC.

At least in
my case, I cannot make a living just out of a tablet, yes I use my tablet 80%
of the time to check mails, browse the web, play, chat, shop, read the news, write
replies etc. However to pay my bills I need to work in a PC, in the Pareto law,
the 20% of the pc use makes 80% of my income.

However the
ass seems to have an identity crisis, now he want to be an elephant, lately I
have read pundits pitching heavily the tablets as productivity devices for the enterprise
market, something like “hey! look the
ass, his back can support almost the same weight of the elephant!” also there
are a begging for bring MS office for tablets. Also a declaration that the
power of ARM processors are now almost on par with x86 processors “desktop
level performance” they say. However with this race of chip computing power, tablets
are playing the same game pc’s plays before tablets appear in the market. Are tablets
reaching the omega point after just five years?

Is like if
Toyota start to offer the Prius with a supercharged V8, 18 inches mud wheels,
4WD, limited slip differential, tow package, off-road style kit, winch and
extra capacity fuel tank, these options completely miss the point of the hybrid
car, the focus for advancement is not in try to be like a truck but in be a
better Prius, same with tablets, adding pc complexity to a tablet doesn’t make
a better tablet, it miss the point for what tablets exist.

Now we have
a new disruption, crossovers

These cars
are not Priuses nor trucks, are not as efficient as Priuses but are more efficient
that trucks, are not as easy to park as Priuses but a lot easier than trucks, and
the list goes on.

These crossovers
are tablet pc’s. In animal analogy we could use an ox, a water ox.

And now the
game plays again, arguments that tablet pc’s are complex, that are the worst of
both world’s, etc. However for me, tablet pc’s help me to carry one device
instead of two, I get a tablet to browse the web, view movies, play, check the Facebook,
but also a pc to make presentations, quotes, technical drawings, renders, etc.

In the
place where only exist asses and elephants, now we have a newcomer the ox. Is
bigger than an ass but smaller than an elephant, is more expensive to feed than
an ass but cheaper than an elephant, cannot as much weight as an elephant but
more than an ass, and so on.

If you
think tablet pc’s are doomed, then read this paragraph again

“The reason people don’t see disruption
coming is because they compare one product to another when they should,
instead, be comparing the needs of the consumer to the
product that best serves those needs.”

teralgoe

I think that the Steve Jobs analogy is more accurate, the pick-up truck instead of the
elephants.

What if we live in a world where only exist pick-up trucks?

You can load the bed with a ton of wood, you can use to drive your children to the soccer practice, or go to the pharmacy to buy Advil, or haul a small ship.

For some uses the pickup truck just work and work very well, for other uses is just an overkill.

Same happens with PC’s, the reality is that the original purpose of the pc’s was intended not for the average consumer, but for scientific and financial companies if not military. The adoption of the consumer market is due the lower prices that mass production yield.

However the exponential growth in computing power of the processors, long ago have surpassed the average consumer needs, I call this,the omega point. The pc for just web browsing and facebook is an overkill.

Then appear the ass (tablet). Following the car theme I will use a Toyota Prius as analogy, the Prius is the opposite of the truck, is nimble, efficient, lightweight, frugal, etc. Sure it cannot haul too much weight, or being loaded with all your possessions in a house moving, but for all your other’s needs, it just work.

For the average consumer is the heaven, is easy to use, you don’t have to worry tohandle, is easy to park (have you tried to park a truck in a crowded parking lot) a fuel tank last double than the truck. If you need to move something heavy, you can borrow the truck of your cousin.

Suddenly most truck users are buying Priuses, only hardcore owners keep their trucks and dismiss priuses, consumers that buy their first car omit completely trucks and go for Priuses. That seems the end of truck market.

teralgoe

Continue..
Well, as happens in the real world car market trucks still are selling, people still use
trucks, maybe not the average consumer, but a lot of farmers and contactors
need trucks to do their work.

Same trend in the computing devices market, people buy a lot of tablets, but also a lot of pc’s, yes, people buy less pc’s, if is because they use more their tablets or because the replacement cycle of the pc’s is longer really doesn’t matter, the people that need to make a living still need to use a PC.

At least in my case, I cannot make a living just out of a tablet, yes I use my tablet 80% of the time to check mails, browse the web, play, chat, shop, read the news, write replies etc. However to pay my bills I need to work in a PC, in the Pareto law, the 20% of the pc use makes 80% of my income.

However the ass seems to have an identity crisis, now he want to be an elephant, lately I have read pundits pitching heavily the tablets as productivity devices for the enterprise market, something like “hey! look the ass, his back can support almost the same weight of the elephant!” also there are a begging for bring MS office for tablets. Also a declaration that the power of ARM processors are now almost on par with x86 processors “desktop level performance” they say. However with this race of chip computing power, tablets are playing the same game pc’s have played before tablets appear in the market. Are tablets reaching the omega point after just five years?

Is like if Toyota start to offer the Prius with a supercharged V8, 18 inches mud wheels, 4WD, limited slip differential, tow package, off-road style kit, winch and extra capacity fuel tank, these options completely miss the point of the hybrid car, the focus for advancement is not in try to be like a truck but in be a better Prius, same with tablets, adding pc complexity to a tablet doesn’t make a better tablet, it miss the point for what tablets exist.

teralgoe

Continue…

Now we have a new disruption, crossovers

These cars are not Priuses nor trucks, are not as efficient as Priuses but are more efficient that trucks, are not as easy to park as Priuses but a lot easier than trucks, and the list goes on.

These crossovers are tablet pc’s. In animal analogy we could use an ox, a water ox.

And now the game plays again, arguments that tablet pc’s are complex, that are the worst of both world’s, etc. However for me, tablet pc’s help me to carry one device instead of two, I get a tablet to browse the web, view movies, play, check the Facebook, but also a pc to make presentations, quotes, technical drawings, renders, etc.

In the place where only exist asses and elephants, now we have a newcomer the ox. Is bigger than an ass but smaller than an elephant, is more expensive to feed than an ass but cheaper than an elephant, cannot as much weight as an elephant but more than an ass, and so on.

If you think tablet pc’s are doomed, then read this paragraph again:

“The reason people don’t see disruption coming is because they compare one product to another when they should, instead, be comparing the needs of the consumer to the product that best serves those needs.”

Angus Matheson

I think an overlooked issue is the complexity, instability, and insecurity of the PC over the tablet. This is important because it is fixable. There is nothing inherently about a computer with a keyboard that gives it these flaws. It is true they come somewhat with the increased flexibility. Computers running desktop software are a pain to use. Especially for most people, not working at all. I think flexible, stable, easy to use, powerful keyboard attached computers would sell much better then the computers of today. (The computers of today are elephants, but they could be bulls. And would be more successful as such.)

Alex

I’m sorry but the point about what makes innovation disruptive is missing from this article. John certainly describes the mechanisms of incremental innovation which could manifest as “innovating the base” (cheaper, simpler) or stretching the promise (premium offerings, new jobs). We indeed appreciate the story of the elephant and the ass, and playing along (and ditching the condescending tone), Disruptive innovation would look more like an alien species, something that escapes from our view of the world as we know it. And as such an alien, it’s difficult to dissect. Now on to the tablet and how it created a new industry and disrupted another… It’s not the cheaper/stable/simpler nature what created the disruptive innovation. Netbooks tried to do that, cheaper and simpler… Chrome books are trying now… What created the disruption then? Addressing needs better, or even addressing unmet needs is still in the territory of incremental innovation. It wasn’t the tablet. Manufacturers had dual tablet-laptops already. So what was it? My opinion: it was the iPad… Not the tablet. The iPad simply transformed our habits. Didn’t stop at making our life simpler or cheaper. It created new behaviors that were easily adapted as a part of our lives. Similar to what the telephone did to the telegraph. And of course the rest of tablet manufacturers jumped the bandwagon. So hoping I’m making a contribution here. Disrupting is about creating products and services that transform our lives and habits in a profound and meaningful way. It requires vision and courage. Many problems exist in large corporations trying to disrupt and at the top lies the financial rewards vs risk. We need leaders focused in long term profitability who understand disruptive innovation as a must have mission of our society and our country. Think about Steve Jobs and Elon Musk. Are you in?

TheLameNessofSmaug

If you think some piddly little tiny screen is somehow better than the beauty of a huge TV or 30 inch monitor, then you need serious help.

TheLameNessofSmaug

Actually the PC does EVERYTHING better than a tablet/smartphone, ten times better in every way, and in speed. The -ONLY- strength of the little piddly devices is their mobility. That’s it. Nothing else. They are overrated junk.